Our Proud Governmental Oversight Corps

Facing a contracting embarrassment of abu Ghraib proportions, the State Department needs a credible oversight team now more than ever. Too bad for them the current Inspector General, Howard J. Krongard, already pulled up the drawbridge against accusations of fraud, corruption, mismanagement and (not kidding) slavery. An article in today’s WaPo covers that ground again, but in a shocking twist the reporters uncovered at least one case that IG Krongard does seem to care about:

The son and daughter-in-law of State Department Inspector General Howard J. Krongard have asked a judge to issue a restraining order forcing him to stop sending “unprofessional and highly offensive” e-mails that suggested the family would be put “on the street” if they lost a lawsuit Krongard has filed against them, according to documents filed last week in a New Jersey court.

[…] Krongard filed suit last year against his son, Kenneth W. Krongard, and his daughter-in-law, Kristin, over a home loan that he said they had defaulted on. They paid back the full loan — then totaling about $320,000 — within weeks of his suit being filed.

But Krongard has demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional interest and penalties and a full repayment of his legal fees. One of the exhibits on file in the case show that Krongard has claimed he has already been billed nearly $114,000 in legal fees.

Your Bush administration. Class acts all.



“What a fucking disgrace this man and his journalistic lackeys are”

Sullivan’s reaction to the news that K-Lo and company went to a private briefing with the Deciderer, where they learned that “the president’s view the attack on Petraeus as ‘an attack on men and women in uniform.'”

I used to subscribe to the National Review. Can I get a retroactive refund? Hacks.



The One and Only OJ Post

Here is the one post we will spend on this stupid, disgusting, fool of a man.

1.) I don’t know exactly what he did, but it certainly seems like prosecutors are overcharging him for shits and giggles. Ten felony counts for barging into a hotel room seems (armed robbery for stealing a baseball cap?), well excessive. If you want to look at the problems with our criminal justice system, I would start there. The media is dutifully reporting that this sort of charging is “standard practice,” and that is confirmed by my personal experiences working in a probation office years ago.

2.) OJ Simpson, along with being a double murderer, is the stupidest son-of-a-bitch to ever walk the earth.

3.) It infuriates me that thousands of man hours are going to be spent investigating this jackass, when he should be in jail in California.

4.) There is NO chance he will ever be tried in front of an impartial jury. Ever.

5.) The media coverage is already awful. Right-wingers like to whinge that the liberals want another Viet nam, allow me to whinge that the media seems to want another OJ Trial. The stupid bastard gave them one.

There. No more talk about OJ.



Manly Man Michael Goldfarb

And I quote:

What really stands out is his pathetic wailing when the cops tase him. I’ve been tased before, the company’s PR reps hooked me up for a three second jolt at our offices one day and it wasn’t that bad.

Where does the right wing media find this endless stream of douchebags?

And can we arrange to have six cops lie on Michael Goldfarb and taser him? And can I watch? And yes, this is the same Michael Goldfarb who whined in agony about a MoveOn commercial for oh, three-four days. I guess pain is just a perspective thing, ehh, tough guy?



Ratcheting Up The Rhetoric

Bill Kristol, pimping for a third war:

It’s great that the military is having success in capturing “affiliates” of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in

Iraq. But it’s also clear from this statement that the training of the terrorists is being done in Iran: “..the transportation of multiple Iraqis to Iran for terrorist training at IRGC-QF training camps.” A senior administration official last week discounted to me the importance of going after such targets in Iran–while not denying they exist and that we know where they are. The explanation wasn’t convincing at the time. In light of this fresh evidence, and in light of the fact that the Iranians have been shelling targets in Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, that they claim are supporting violence in Iran, one has to ask: “Why are terror training camps in Iran, camps that are directly training terrorists to attack U.S. troops, off limits?” After all, if Khameini (to whom the IRGC reports) has already established the principle of cross-border attacks against accelerators of violence, who are we to disagree with the wisdom of the Supreme Leader?

I now don’t care what the Petraeus report says next week. At this point, it is imperative we get out of Iraq before these crazy motherfuckers convince their friends in the White House to invade Iran.








Breathtaking Moments In Online Punditry

The Powerline:

Indeed, the affair illustrates the power of ideology as a source of intellectual corruption rivaling that of money.

“The quote:”

“It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.”

Serenity now.



What Happened to Beauchamp?

It has now been a week since Beauchamp outed himself as the DIARIST WHO HATES AMERIKKA AND HER TROOPS (and not necessarily in that order), and I see the only one still writing about it is Hugh Hewitt’s less scrupulous sidekick, Dean Barnett. Even then, Dean’s post consists of basically an excuse to link to this intrepid report by Matt “Yes I appeared in Gay porn but that does not mean I am gay and even if I am for some reason the Right-wing gives me a pass anyway” Sanchez (obligatory Onion link), in which his investigation has turned up no one who has seen the disfigured woman (PROOF BEAUCHAMP IS A LIAR!).

At any rate, since it has been only a week, I am curious why there is little conversation about Beauchamp. Last week he was single-handedly destroying morale, fueling terrorist hate, and smearing the country. He was such a threat that every milblogger and every Bush blogger immediately set phasers on smear, and hysteria reached a fevered pitch in no time.

But now, nothing.

Is it possible that he was just a convenient distraction for the internuts that control discourse in the right-wing blogosphere, and now that the chest-thumping and bellowing and feigned outrage at these terrible smears against God and Country have been publicly displayed, they can move on to some other distraction? Like little dogs, they can go bite someone else’s ankle for whatever the perceived grievance du jour might be? Personally, I am betting it is Obama’s turn, as Malkin, the crown princess of the nutroots activist brigades on the right (no one can start a hysterical linkfest like she can), is already on the issue.

At any rate, Beauchamp, we have forgotten you in just a few days, but thank you. You gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica when they investigated you and your girlfriend. You gave certain others a testosterone rush they have not felt since High School football when you gave them an opportunity to opine about giving you a blanket party. And most of all, thank you for providing a week-long distraction as to how fucked up things really are in Iraq.

*** Update ***

LOL. Having served as judge, jury, and executioneer after deeming everything Beauchamp said as a lie, The Sundries Shack claims that they are merely waiting for the investigation to finish. You see, that is how it works- first you deny, then you smear, then you have a linkfest attacking the person, then you shift the goalposts on your accusations, then you smear some more, AND THEN you investigate.

BTW- How is that investigation going? Have you deep thinkers done any more sand table exercises to determine if it is possible to run over a dog with a track vehicle? Inquiring minds want to know.

Plus, I am a hate-filled wretch (and I thought I had BDS)! If you would only stop being so easy to hate…

*** Update #2 ***

This, from the Sundries Shack, really needs a second dose of mocking, but I do not have the energy:

I realize that accepting that the right can be patient and rationial in its criticisms is an alien thought to Cole. Then again, having watched him descend into blithering idiocy for a couple years now, I’m not surprised that such a simple concept would have so much trouble finding traction in his brain.

I know when I think of the behavior directed at Beauchamp last week, patient and rational are the two adjectives that spring to mind.

*** Update #3 ***

Jeff Goldstein claims last week’s hysteria was merely “fact-checking.” This takes silly to a whole new level, but at least this piece from Jeff is better than the impenetrable gibberish he offered up last week.

*** Update #4 ***

An update from planet Goldstein:

update 3: John Cole just IMed me, trying to be chummy. I invited him to blow me.

I assume that impeaches anything I ever write from here on out.

Actually, what I said was “the upside of your comments section is I can now link to you again without having to hear you whinge about how mean my commenters are.”

That was me being “chummy.”

*** Update #5 ***

The New Republic posts a statement about the alleged “fiction” that Beauchamp penned:

All of Beauchamp’s essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp’s account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

Read the whole thing.